Main Navigation

Because I think it might be alternately amusing and useful, I’ve decided to compile a list of Open things. Additions welcome in comments; or if you can point me to someone else who has already done this, I’d appreciate that too. I think the list is more interesting if it stays focused on organizations claiming to represent Open Something, rather than just individuals saying that X is open, but pointers in that direction welcome too (and maybe will also show up some interesting patterns). Bonus points if they have a standard for defining what “open” means in their context, or if they are just hilariously awful.

Open Source (as far as I know, the first use of Open in this context?)

Open Standards (originally defined by OSI; now being redefined as of this morning by Open Stand to generously include standards that aren’t what I would call open; i.e., that can require patent royalty payments)

I can’t believe I forgot Open Compute and OpenFlow – both are clients, and it was Open Compute that first made me contemplate this list several months back! Oops. This is what I get for making lists before having coffee.

> standards that aren’t what I would call open;
> i.e., that can require patent royalty payments

I think there are two different axes for standards here, one about the process that it’s developed under and one about who can implement it. I’ve always used the terms “open” and “free” for those respectively, but that’s just me.

For example MP4 is an open standard (it’s developed by a public-enough committee) but it’s not a free standard (you can’t implement it without royalties). On the other hand WebM is not an open standard (Google threw it over the wall) but it is free (probably no patents).

Ideally standards would be both, but to me standards developed in an inclusive manner which may be affected by patents are better than ones you can’t participate in and affected by patents.

James: The distinction you’re making is absolutely critical, and one I’d like to explore more. I’m afraid, though, that “open” and “free” have been conflated and confused to such an extent that using them that way just confuses things. (See, for example, the reference in another comment to the Open Software Foundation, which was formed in the mid-90s to promote what you would call… a free standard. :)

I sat next to a lady yesterday whose title was Director of Open Innovation, and we had a lovely discussion about Open Innovation and how it relates (but doesn’t always correlate exactly) with the lessons I’ve learned from Open Source.